Gentlemen, as long as you continue to respond to the threads put up by Sethwick or Warthur or JHKim, you're playing their game.  They are here, filling up the place with talk about the Forge, because as soon as your fighting a defensive game arguing about GNS theory or about whether or not DiTV is a roleplaying game or whatever, you are not spending that time creating a different kind of theory.  Which is what this forum is supposed to be about.

They know this, they are doing what they are doing on purpose. They want this place to end up being about discussing the Forge's terminology and games as an intermediate step toward it being a site that accepts the methodology and jargon of the Forge.  They think this is a way to do it, by starting up dozens of threads where they try to spread Forge propaganda.

I would like it that if you are not one of these people, you consider starting up a thread talking about non-forge theory, instead of wasting time answering them.

If you are one of these people, and you think I've "terribly misjudged" you and you are not just fucking agent provocateurs here to spread your Forge-brainwashing like a fucking sickness, then PROVE IT, FUCKERS.  Prove it by showing that you're capable of coming onto a theory forum and talking about something that ISN'T Forge Theory, without sneakily trying to push Forge Theory in there, without bringing up Forge Games, without trying to defend or promote the Forge's way of doing so.

But right now, and until you do, to me you're just Swine who are here to try to ruin the usability of this forum.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIf you are one of these people, and you think I've "terribly misjudged" you and you are not just fucking agent provocateurs here to spread your Forge-brainwashing like a fucking sickness, then PROVE IT, FUCKERS.  Prove it by showing that you're capable of coming onto a theory forum and talking about something that ISN'T Forge Theory, without sneakily trying to push Forge Theory in there, without bringing up Forge Games, without trying to defend or promote the Forge's way of doing so.

Let's take a look at the two threads that I've started in recent days about Forge games.

The Riddle of Steel thread: "The Riddle of Steel is a cool game, but it barely resembles the sort of Narrativist power-sharing story-enabling game the Forge is known for. Isn't it a bit dumb for the Forge to keep regarding it as Narrativist?"

The Burning Wheel thread: "The Burning Wheel is a cool game, but it barely resembles the sort of Narrativist power-sharing story-enabling game the Forge is known for. In that respect, it's a lot like the Riddle of Steel. I suppose it's unfair to tar all the games the Forge talk about with the same brush, since it's obvious that they are not all swinish products of GNS theory."

The Burning Wheel doesn't refer to GNS theory at all. The Riddle of Steel makes the occasional reference to it, but at its heart is an ass-kicking traditional RPG with some interesting Spiritual Attributes and a fun combat mechanic. In other words, while they're games which are popular on the Forge and whose authors acknowledge the Forge, and so can be described as "Forge games", they're certainly nothing like the Unholy Trinity you mentioned in the other thread. They're on the Forge because of the way they are published, not because of the philosophies they espouse.

In the end, all I've been saying with these threads is this: We shouldn't judge a book by its cover, or by the internet forums which give it props. If I'd been promoting happy-clappy Narrativist power-sharing hippy story games with those threads, you could accuse me of pushing GNS theory. As it is, I've been a) pointing out how The Riddle of Steel doesn't even stick to the GNS theory, even though it claims to, and b) how the Burning Wheel seems to exist entirely independently of GNS and is only a Forge game because of the way it's published.

If a game is automatically considered BAD AND WRONG, and discussion of it is considered PROPAGATION OF EVIL FORGE THEORY, then we're lurching into dogma, and surely the major objection to GNS theory is that it's, well, dogmatic?

Pundit: if you ever get around to reading The Riddle of Steel or The Burning Wheel, I'll happily challenge you to a debate thread about whether they should be put in the same category as My Life With Master. If you already have read either or both of them, great! Let's go!

Quote from: WarthurLet's take a look at the two threads that I've started in recent days about Forge games.

Yes, lets..

Quote from: WarthurThe Riddle of Steel thread: "The Riddle of Steel is a cool game, but it barely resembles the sort of Narrativist power-sharing story-enabling game the Forge is known for. Isn't it a bit dumb for the Forge to keep regarding it as Narrativist?"

Wait.  First, who the fuck cares what the Forge regards a game as?  Second, the whole point of this forum, if I understood Pundits original posts, was that this forum does not regard GNS as Truth Laid Bare. So this thread takes for granted that Narrativist is valid in the first place. Since you have a group of people here who don't necessarily believe that, and you know it, how is it not acting as an agent provocateur to ask the question in this way?

Quote from: WarthurThe Burning Wheel thread: "The Burning Wheel is a cool game, but it barely resembles the sort of Narrativist power-sharing story-enabling game the Forge is known for. In that respect, it's a lot like the Riddle of Steel. I suppose it's unfair to tar all the games the Forge talk about with the same brush, since it's obvious that they are not all swinish products of GNS theory."

Talk about passive aggressive.  Just ask then.  WTF - it's too hard to start a thread that says, "you know, given TROS and BW and DitV, maybe being from the Forge is not automatically a challenge to traditional RPG's."  Instead, these posts assume agreement that Narrativist is an accepted Truth.  It's a neat rhetorical trick.

Quote from: WarthurThe Burning Wheel doesn't refer to GNS theory at all. The Riddle of Steel makes the occasional reference to it, but at its heart is an ass-kicking traditional RPG with some interesting Spiritual Attributes and a fun combat mechanic. In other words, while they're games which are popular on the Forge and whose authors acknowledge the Forge, and so can be described as "Forge games", they're certainly nothing like the Unholy Trinity you mentioned in the other thread. They're on the Forge because of the way they are published, not because of the philosophies they espouse.

Well, this is the neat little trick Forgies pull where, when in the Forge, they bask in all the glory of GNS.  But once outside of The Forge, it's all "we're only associated with The Forge because of the way we publish - we only mean indie in the non-three-tier sense, not the we're-cooler-and-smarter sense." Getting called on that, here in TheRPGSite, is perfectly fine - not prejudice.

Quote from: WarthurIn the end, all I've been saying with these threads is this: We shouldn't judge a book by its cover, or by the internet forums which give it props. If I'd been promoting happy-clappy Narrativist power-sharing hippy story games with those threads, you could accuse me of pushing GNS theory. As it is, I've been a) pointing out how The Riddle of Steel doesn't even stick to the GNS theory, even though it claims to, and b) how the Burning Wheel seems to exist entirely independently of GNS and is only a Forge game because of the way it's published.

You didn't promote it, you assumed it was accepted truth here.  As far as I know, again assuming I've understood Pundit correctly, that assumption is incorrect with respect to TheRPGSite. So you did push GNS, just more subtly than coming in and asking whether Narrativism is even a valid concept.  And that's not what you did, as I previously mentioned.  If you'd done that, perhaps the reaction would be different.

Quote from: WarthurIf a game is automatically considered BAD AND WRONG, and discussion of it is considered PROPAGATION OF EVIL FORGE THEORY, then we're lurching into dogma, and surely the major objection to GNS theory is that it's, well, dogmatic?

I know that I, personally, have never considered any game, Forge or no, automatically BAD AND WRONG. I think the common assumption is that it will not be like "traditional" RPG's in significant ways. I ask so many questions about DitV, when it comes up, for two reasons. First to see if I understand the mechanics well enough to decide if I'd like it.  Second, to illustrate how DitV is different from "traditional" RPG's.  What someone plays/likes is there own business.

Quote from: WarthurPundit: if you ever get around to reading The Riddle of Steel or The Burning Wheel, I'll happily challenge you to a debate thread about whether they should be put in the same category as My Life With Master. If you already have read either or both of them, great! Let's go!

I don't know of anyone who said they are in the same category.  In fact, if I wasn't so lazy, I'd dig up a thread I seem to remember where people specifically separate these games due differences in design - mostly dealing with how tightly the story is constrained. In fact, I' doubt you'd have much of a debate as I doubt many care what categorical differences there are between TROS and MLwM. But hey, go for it! It might give me more insight into the mechanics of those games without having to purchase them.

Quote from: James J SkachWait.  First, who the fuck cares what the Forge regards a game as?

Because what other way is there to determine whether something is a Forge game?

QuoteSecond, the whole point of this forum, if I understood Pundits original posts, was that this forum does not regard GNS as Truth Laid Bare. So this thread takes for granted that Narrativist is valid in the first place. Since you have a group of people here who don't necessarily believe that, and you know it, how is it not acting as an agent provocateur to ask the question in this way?

Because Ron Edwards, and others on the Forge, have pronounced the Riddle of Steel to be a "Narrativist game with Simulationist elements", despite the fact that this is patently untrue? Given that this forum does not regard GNS theory as gospel, isn't it worth pointing out when the very guy who proposed GNS in the first place, as well as a lot of people on the Forge, are misapplying it?

Let's review the discussion so far, shall we?

Me: "Wow, the Riddle of Steel doesn't even slightly resemble the sort of game GNS proponents claim it is. I guess this is an example of GNS failing!"

You: "SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECH EVIL GNS PROPAGANDIST SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECH".

QuoteTalk about passive aggressive.  Just ask then.  WTF - it's too hard to start a thread that says, "you know, given TROS and BW and DitV, maybe being from the Forge is not automatically a challenge to traditional RPG's."

It would, but the thought came to me as I was writing the post.

QuoteInstead, these posts assume agreement that Narrativist is an accepted Truth.  It's a neat rhetorical trick.

Don't be dense. The posts assume nothing except that:

- PEOPLE ON THE FORGE tend to adopt GNS theory.
- PEOPLE ON THIS FORUM tend to regard a game as a "Forge game" if THE GAME'S DESIGNERS BUY INTO NARRATIVISM, even though Burning Wheel - a Forge game by both the Forge's definition and the designer of the game's opinion - isn't even slightly "Narrativist", by the standards of the Forge.

That's all my use of the term "Narrativist" entailed.

QuoteWell, this is the neat little trick Forgies pull where, when in the Forge, they bask in all the glory of GNS.  But once outside of The Forge, it's all "we're only associated with The Forge because of the way we publish - we only mean indie in the non-three-tier sense, not the we're-cooler-and-smarter sense." Getting called on that, here in TheRPGSite, is perfectly fine - not prejudice.

The author of The Riddle of Steel is certainly guilty of that - trust me, I admire the game for its mechanics, not for its snotty attitude.

If you can find an instance where Luke Crane is guilty of that, well, chances are you'll change my opinion of him.

QuoteYou didn't promote it, you assumed it was accepted truth here.

No I didn't, as I pointed out above.

What DOES seem to be accepted truth here is that "Forge games" automatically involve a lot of effort on the part of the game designer to pursue a Narrativist agenda. And this is true for Sorcerer, and for Dogs In the Vineyard, and for My Life With Master. Burning Wheel? Doesn't look Narrativist to me. Riddle of Steel? The author might claim otherwise, but I say it's not Narrativist at all, by the Forge's standards.

Which just goes to show that a lot of the time "Narrativist" can just mean nothing more than "Something Ron Edwards likes, this week."

QuoteAs far as I know, again assuming I've understood Pundit correctly, that assumption is incorrect with respect to TheRPGSite. So you did push GNS, just more subtly than coming in and asking whether Narrativism is even a valid concept.  And that's not what you did, as I previously mentioned.  If you'd done that, perhaps the reaction would be different.

All I've been saying is that "Narrativism is a concept. Some people believe in it, and there's a game design methodology which is based on it - The Mountain Witch and My Life With Master are two good examples. But look! These two games that are often put forward as being examples of Forge games don't seem to follow a Narrativist design plan at all!"

That isn't saying "Narrativism is a valid concept," that's saying "A bunch of the most popular games associated with the Forge don't even follow the Narrativist agenda, so we shouldn't assume any game coming out of the Forge treats Narrativism as valid, or even relevant."

QuoteI don't know of anyone who said they are in the same category.

The games are widely discussed on the Forge, and tend to be regarded as "Forge games". Both of these things could lead folk to assume they belong in the same category.

Of all Forge games, the Riddle of Steel and Burning Wheel both came into the Forge from outside, and neither was designed using pure Forge principles. As a result, they are the most traditional of Forge games. Both can be played as pure trad games if you prefer, or apparently you can play them as Forge type games if you like. I think Pundit's point is that neither can be considered typical 'Swine' games any more than HQ can be considered a typical Trad game.

I don't know about The Shadow of Yesterday, as I've neither read nor played it. I do have a lot of respect for Clinton Nixon as a person, though.

-clash

I'm not much of a guy for theory - like the Ents, there's nobody who's precisely on my side. I don't mind the lack of one, though. I seem to be doing OK with purely empirical methods. Maybe we don't need one?

-clash

RANT:

Here is the rule I've discovered about the Forge:

Games Ron Edwards likes=Narrativist supporting. It doesn't matter if it predates his theory (Tunnels and Trolls). Has no support suggested by anyone's  READING of the the actual articles he wrote*, or is the most absolutly metal N game ever. The valuation of "N" being "whatever Ron Edwards likes." This creates confusion among those who are not Ron Edwards or his brain trust.

*Frankly Ron Edwards is a bad writer**, Sorcerer shows this, his articles show this, he really can't write his way out of a paper bag. He keeps talking about "mainstream" and "games so completely different he can't talk about online" means basically he doesn't want literate, better writers, actually seeing it.


**I'm not saying I'm necessarily better, mind you.

End Rant

The fact that many Forge supporters seem to have very different agendas, interests and even confusion about what they want. Couple of my friends, who I respect greatly, can sit down with 'traditional rpgs' and have fun.Yet are Forge supporters of a sort. This implies that NOTHING is really wrong with them, but something is muddying the waters and limiting their vision IMHO.
    It seems more likely to be confusion created by the articles, than actual brain damage on their part. That is presuming the point of playing games is "fun" (rather than some wierd attempt to be an idiot-savant modern alienist using games as your tools.)


I'd like to actually see them post here, and find some clarity free of the Forge "shut down discussions we don't like" method. My solution to combat over emphasis of Forgie threads is for those not into that--to write MORE non-Forgie threads.

Quote from: flyingmiceOf all Forge games, the Riddle of Steel and Burning Wheel both came into the Forge from outside, and neither was designed using pure Forge principles. As a result, they are the most traditional of Forge games. Both can be played as pure trad games if you prefer, or apparently you can play them as Forge type games if you like. I think Pundit's point is that neither can be considered typical 'Swine' games any more than HQ can be considered a typical Trad game.

I know all this. I just thought that people who enjoy poking holes in GNS theory would be amused that two of the biggest success stories associated with the Forge don't fit the theory at all. (The fact that they succeeded independently before they were adopted by the Forge should only add irony.)

I'm kind of appalled that some people's knee-jerk paranoia is so pronounced that mentioning games that the Forge has (enthusiastically) adopted qualifies as promoting GNS - and the fact that pointing out that said games don't even fit the GNS model and suggesting that just because a game is talked up on the Forge, doesn't mean they necessarily are GNS Swinefodder qualifies as promoting GNS beggars belief.

Quote from: SilverlionRANT:

Here is the rule I've discovered about the Forge:

Games Ron Edwards likes=Narrativist supporting. It doesn't matter if it predates his theory (Tunnels and Trolls). Has no support suggested by anyone's  READING of the the actual articles he wrote*, or is the most absolutly metal N game ever. The valuation of "N" being "whatever Ron Edwards likes." This creates confusion among those who are not Ron Edwards or his brain trust.

Witness, in fact, the Riddle of Steel, which as far as I can tell qualifies as Narrativist because of the Spiritual Attributes (who's to say those don't reflect real, in-game spiritual qualities the characters possess? Then they aren't Narrativist by Ron's definition! Shock!) and because Ron has a deep fondness for Conanesque fantasy.

QuoteThe fact that many Forge supporters seem to have very different agendas, interests and even confusion about what they want. Couple of my friends, who I respect greatly, can sit down with 'traditional rpgs' and have fun.

Agreed.

Who the fuck cares if it "qualifies as narrativist" or not, when we, here at theRPGsite, reject the notion that "Narrativism" or any of GNS exists in reality.

"Narrativism" is a lie. GNS is a lie.

This site rejects any thread or post that begins with the presupposition that either of these concepts are real.  

Its all very well and good that you're saying "Ron Edwards just defines 'narrativism' as whatever he likes"; I'm sure that's pretty well true. But then why discuss narrativism at all?

If you're goal here is to say "GNS is wrong"; then you picked a very roundabout way of doing it, PLUS you're preaching the choir.

And if you really want to convince me that you've got something worth saying, arguing with me in this thread isn't what's going to pull that off; I already gave you my challenge: start a thread about theory that doesn't deal with GNS/forgespeak.

Hell, that goes for ALL of you, not just the accused "agent provocateurs".. this subforum can be much more than what it is right now, if people get beyond speaking about the Forge (for good or ill), and start discussing theory in a way that actually saves theory from the semantic trap the Forge Swine have created for it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: WarthurBecause what other way is there to determine whether something is a Forge game?

Wait (again). I'll ask the question again.  Who the fuck cares what the Forge regards a game as? Who cares if something is a Forge game or not? It might influence your preconceptions, but it's just a moniker for any game that espouses some connection to the Forge (and, I suppose, is accepted by Mr. Edwards).

Quote from: WarthurBecause Ron Edwards, and others on the Forge, have pronounced the Riddle of Steel to be a "Narrativist game with Simulationist elements", despite the fact that this is patently untrue?

And again, who the fuck cares? Do I care what the fuck Mr. Edwards claims a game is or is not, particularly with his track record, and particularly given I don't believe in his Theory (as a whole)?

Quote from: WarthurGiven that this forum does not regard GNS theory as gospel, isn't it worth pointing out when the very guy who proposed GNS in the first place, as well as a lot of people on the Forge, are misapplying it?

Again, I'll ask why you didn't frame it that way, then?  Instead, as I pointed out, we get what appears to assume the acceptance of Narrativist as a concept.  If that was not your intention (as you pointed out later), you can't blame it on the rest of us when many of us took it that way, can you?

Quote from: WarthurLet's review the discussion so far, shall we?

Yes, lets...

Quote from: WarthurMe: "Wow, the Riddle of Steel doesn't even slightly resemble the sort of game GNS proponents claim it is. I guess this is an example of GNS failing!"

Actually, here was your first post about Dogs in the Vineyards:

Quote from: WarthurReally, in all the rants against "indie" games I somewhat understood when games like Capes and Universalis were called "not-RPGs." There was no GM, roles exchange hands freely scene by scene, there is no such thing as "my guy." I even understood it somewhat with games like My Life with Master, where there is a set end condition and even a way to "win" and "lose" (kind of).

But Dogs in the Vineyard... How in the heck is it not an RPG? You have a party of characters, one per player, a GM who sets up a scenario, and the PCs try to solve the problems of the scenario. Hell, replace "town" with "dungeon" and "remove sin" with "kill the monsters" and you have D&D.

For that matter, how is Sorcerer not an RPG? The only really radical element there is writing the kicker...

Ya know, that seems to be a little bit more hostile than you make it out to be. It certainly came across, to me, as a "you guys who don't like GNS have to admit that DitV is an RPG!"  Not one mention of GNS, or Narrativism, or how DitV blows holes in GNS Theory.  Would you care to restate your position?

Quote from: WarthurYou: "SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECH EVIL GNS PROPAGANDIST SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECH".

Wow, that's quite a memory you have.  You do realize I did not respond to your post until 44 other people had. You started the thread on 12/13, I didn't respond until 12/15 – two full days later.  And then, here's the kicker, I make the same exact point you claim that you were trying to make.  And I quote:

Quote from: MeAmusingly, a game that is incoherent (you could play it as a gamist or a narratavist) and follows most of the traditional RPG memes (dungeon/town, player/gm, adventurer/Dog) is the most successful production linked to a forum that pushes a theory that claims this is the incorrect way to design a game!

Go to my posts on TROS thread – I'm asking questions about what it means to even be Narrativist. Hardly screeching.

Would you care to restate your position – or at least remove the "you" from your accusation of screeching?

Quote from: WarthurDon't be dense. The posts assume nothing except that:

- PEOPLE ON THE FORGE tend to adopt GNS theory.
- PEOPLE ON THIS FORUM tend to regard a game as a "Forge game" if THE GAME'S DESIGNERS BUY INTO NARRATIVISM, even though Burning Wheel - a Forge game by both the Forge's definition and the designer of the game's opinion - isn't even slightly "Narrativist", by the standards of the Forge.

That's all my use of the term "Narrativist" entailed.

Go look at your TROS post that starts that thread.  You are no clearer in that post about your intentions than you are in the DitV thread starter.  It's interesting you claim the reader is dense when your writing so badly represents the idea you claim you were trying to make.

Quote from: WarthurWhat DOES seem to be accepted truth here is that "Forge games" automatically involve a lot of effort on the part of the game designer to pursue a Narrativist agenda.

I don't know about anyone else, but I make no assumption about Narrativist agenda.  About the only assumption I have made is that Forge games are intended to focus on a single Creative Agenda. That's about it. YMMV.

Quote from: WarthurAnd this is true for Sorcerer, and for Dogs In the Vineyard, and for My Life With Master. Burning Wheel? Doesn't look Narrativist to me. Riddle of Steel? The author might claim otherwise, but I say it's not Narrativist at all, by the Forge's standards.

Which just goes to show that a lot of the time "Narrativist" can just mean nothing more than "Something Ron Edwards likes, this week."

See, we can agree on something, apparently.

Quote from: WarthurAll I've been saying is that "Narrativism is a concept. Some people believe in it, and there's a game design methodology which is based on it - The Mountain Witch and My Life With Master are two good examples. But look! These two games that are often put forward as being examples of Forge games don't seem to follow a Narrativist design plan at all!"

This is a complete disconnect.  You seem to be implying that Narrativist = Forge, or that it does to people here.  Again, I don't know about anyone else, but that's not the sole indicator of a Forge game, whether or not it pursues some specific "Creative Agenda" as defined by Forge Theory.

Quote from: WarthurThat isn't saying "Narrativism is a valid concept," that's saying "A bunch of the most popular games associated with the Forge don't even follow the Narrativist agenda, so we shouldn't assume any game coming out of the Forge treats Narrativism as valid, or even relevant."

OK.  Thanks for telling me not to do something I already wasn't doing.

Quote from: James J SkachActually, here was your first post about Dogs in the Vineyards:

That's Sethwick you're quoting there, not me. In fact, my Riddle of Steel post and Burning Wheel posts were meant to counter his - "Yeah, it doesn't make sense to say that DiTV isn't an RPG... but it doesn't make sense to say TRoS and BW are story games!"

I don't know why you've decided that I am a terrible person who needs attacking, but please, base your attacks in reality why don't you?

Well, I can proudly say that I do my best to pay the Forgers no mind, at least in that I don't respond to their threads. I'm also trying to promote the name "Forgers" for them, rather than "Forgeites" or similar, because... it's all fake. Whatever people's reported experiences, their theory remains unaltered and "true". If you say, "that makes sense", that proves their theory is true. If you say, "that makes no sense", well then you just didn't understand it, here's another essay to read. If you show you did understand it, but still say, "it makes no sense", then you're just brain-damaged, your perceptions are warped by your bad experiences, like a molested child, you thought you were having fun but don't really understand properly what fun is.

It's old Freud's trick. He first became famous for his description of "the unconscious." He had a patient, whom he called "Dora" in his case study. Dora came to him upset because her father was molesting her. At first he believed her, and was trying to treat her, make her feel better. Then he realised that her father was a member of Vienna's high society - an important, and well-respected man. So his reasoning went like this.

"Dear Dora, obviously a man I respect cannot possibly do such heinous things. However, you obviously believe he did. So I suggest that actually you have a sexual desire for your father, and only fantasised the sexual acts."
"No, Dr. Freud, I really was molested. And I don't want to have sex with him - he's my father, for God's sake!"
"Ah, well that is where the unconscious comes in, dear Dora. Because you cannot face your desire for your father, because you're ashamed of it, you sublimated your desires into fantasies of his desiring you. In your fantasies, he takes you by force and so you're not responsible for the sexual acts."
"I told you, I am conscious of no desire for him."
"Yes, your desire was conscious, but you made it unconscious."
"So if I agree that I had desire for him, then that proves your theory?"
"Yes."
"And if I say that I had no desire for him, that also proves your theory?"
"Definitely."
"So whatever the data, your theory is proved?"
"Yes."
"Brilliant theory."

They're "Forgers" because whatever the data given them, it proves their theories. Like Freud, they claim to know us better than we know ourselves.

All this makes me think it's time to bring some of my Why Game Groups Fuck Up ideas forward... They're being tidied up at a wiki right now. I don't think I could usefully talk about some grand trinity of gaming like GNS, GDS, AGE, etc. I'm more interested in the stuff that comes before that - the people sitting at the game table, rolling dice and eating cheetos. They way groups get together and fall apart. I mean, the last guy we kicked out of the game group, it wasn't because he wasn't "Narrativist" enough or some shit like that, it was because he left the group every twenty minutes for a smoke - kinda broke up the flow of the action - brought beers and wouldn't share them, while hoeing into our munchies, didn't own dice because he said he could always borrow some, and his roleplaying skills didn't extend beyond staring blankly at the GM and yelling, "I SHOOT HIM!"

That's the sort of stuff gamers want to know about. How to get a game group, and once got, how to keep it, without it breaking up because someone's a dickhead, or the game sessions are boring. It's all about the players. This rpg theory, even if it were all correct, is like telling a guy about the chemistry and physics of piston chambers, when he's having his first driving lessons and doesn't even know how to start the thing, recover from skids and so on.

Quote from: RPGPunditGentlemen, as long as you continue to respond to the threads put up by Sethwick or Warthur or JHKim, you're playing their game.  They are here, filling up the place with talk about the Forge, because as soon as your fighting a defensive game arguing about GNS theory or about whether or not DiTV is a roleplaying game or whatever, you are not spending that time creating a different kind of theory.  Which is what this forum is supposed to be about.

Y'know what I'd recommend (for what it's worth)?  I'd recommend that you, RPGPundit, step forward to set a positive, constructive example.

Rather than complaining about Forge posters, or even warning people not to complain about Forge posters ... how about you set forth to create the start of that "different kind of theory" that you want to see emerge?

I'd certainly be interested to see what sort of theoretical structure you, personally, think would help to design, run and enjoy games.

:shrug: I don't see why they should be discouraged. Folks seem to enjoy following those kinds of threads even if they don't subscribe to all that theory stuff.

Mostly it's more or less the usual suspects who are responding...probably because they are the only ones familiar with the jargon used and god knows this stuff has been flamed before on countless other forums.

Most gamers don't really know of or understand what the forge, GNS, what have you is all about. It's just a show for most people. And for others they may get to know of games they have not heard of and maybe to experiment with a different kind of playstyle.

I do agree that folks should start more threads about what gamers actualy do. Maybe this means more craft stuff. Stuff that is relevent to what goes on around the gaming table. I'm firmly in the in the 'How do you do things in your games?" school of thought.

Besides theory has lost any claim to the word "theory"...it's all dogma now anyway. I'd rather hear gamers talk about their experience using these so-called Forge influenced games, than hear about the theory itself.

Regards,
David R